Below Is an Argument from Analogy Along with a Proposed

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) It's permissible for a surgeon to perform breast augmentation on a competent adult who wants it.
2) Performing a clitoridectomy (that is, the surgical excision of the clitoris) on a competent adult who wants it is relevantly similar to performing breast augmentation on a competent adult who wants it.
Thus, it's permissible for a surgeon to perform a clitoridectomy on a competent adult who wants it.
Proposed disanalogy: unlike breast augmentation, clitoridectomy removes part of a person's body.

A) Suppose a person wants to just get their clitoris scarred instead of totally removed as in a typical clitoridectomy. Now the procedure doesn't remove part of the body, so is it still permissible? Yes, so the difference is not relevant.
B) It doesn't matter whether the breast augmentation removes part of the body or not that's not relevant.
C) Suppose a person doesn't want a breast augmentation (which adds things to the body to make the breasts bigger) but instead wants a breast reduction surgery (which removes part of the breasts to make them smaller) . Would this surgery still be morally permissible, even though the procedure now removes part of the person's body? Yes, it would. So, the difference is not relevant.
D) Suppose someone's breast augmentation didn't remove part of their body. That would change the morality of the situation, so the difference is relevant.